Jewel v. Boxer - 156 Cal. App. 3d 171, 203 Cal. Rptr. 13 (1984)

Rule:

In the absence of a partnership agreement, the Uniform Partnership Act requires that attorneys' fees received on cases in progress upon dissolution of a law partnership are to be shared by the former partners according to their right to fees in the former partnership, regardless of which former partner provides legal services in the case after the dissolution. The fact that the client substitutes one of the former partners as attorney of record in place of the former partnership does not affect this result.

Facts:

The four partners of a law firm dissolved the firm and formed two new law firms. Plaintiffs, two former partners, filed a complaint against defendants, the other former partners, for an accounting of the fees received from cases that were active upon dissolution. The trial court allocated post dissolution fees on a quantum meruit basis. 

Issue:

Did the trial court err in allocating post dissolution fees on a quantum meruit basis?

Answer:

Yes.

Conclusion:

The court reversed the judgment and remanded. None of the partners was entitled to extra compensation for services rendered in completing unfinished business. In the absence of a written partnership agreement, the post dissolution fees should have been allocated pursuant to the Uniform Partnership Act based on the partners' respective interests in the former partnership. This was true even though several clients had substituted one of the former partners as attorney of record in place of the former partnership. The substitution of attorneys did not change the character of the cases as unfinished business of the old firm. Where each former partner completed work on the partnership's cases that were active upon dissolution, the allocation of fees according to each former partner's interest would not result in an undue hardship on any partner.